Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Day's Taxonomy of Learning

Just as a quick recap, I recently wrote an article criticizing the Kentucky Core Academic Standards, relying in part on the occurrence of different words in those standards. Richard Day responded in part by implying that I had miscounted, and pointed to the Next Generation Science Standards (an entirely different document) as proof. My original article mentioned the Next Generation Science standards only in passing, as related to, but distinct from the Kentucky Core Standards.

I pointed out that my criticism was of the Kentucky Core Standards and not the (again, entirely different) Next Generation Science Standards. I have corrected Day on this point, so we'll see what happens.

But for the moment, let's just imagine Day teaching the aspiring teachers under his charge at EKU using the same principles he has so far used in his criticism of my Herald-Leader article:
"All right, class. We will now turn to Shakespeare. Everyone please open your copy of Fifty Shades of Gray to p. ..."
[Later in the day] "... Okay students, the next subject is addition and subtraction. This offers us a fine opportunity to teach our students how to use a compass ..."
[Even later in the day] "Let us never forget, as we teach American history, the greatest American of all: Julius Caesar!"
We could extend this treatment to other subjects like anatomy, but I'm afraid the results would not be pretty.


Richard Day said...


This is just sad, and I'm sorry to say, the first time I ever felt like you flat out lied to your readers.

"implying that I had miscounted"


Look, I don't care who is looking at which document. Have that argument with Griggs who made the point - although it would certainly help if everyone made their sources available so that everyone could agree on one data set - as is required in quantitative analysis.

I did not question your counting.

I questioned the method you used to draw conclusions, and opined that the method was insufficient.

The rest of this is recap crap.

I'll respond more on the last post.

Martin S. said...

It is shameful that Mr Cothran is being forced to expend energy responding to massively resourced bureaucratic functionaries. Where is this person's shame? A simple point was made, what stops these education bureaucrats from celebrating their emphasis on 'climate change/disruption/warming/carbon pollution/clean energy future/' or whatever. If it really is the 'civil rights issue of our time or most urgent issue facing our globe today or our children's future blah blah blah'

You people feel the need to destroy and subvert marriage for elite benefit "Future historians will probably marvel that LGBT activists—a small, well-organized, and wealthy segment of the population—successfully deployed civil rights language for material benefit, especially at a time when national economic inequality only continues to worsen."

Why not retask the minds of children to exalt our great leaders' judgments and political acumen? If they are so enlightened then it is your duty to make kids understand it as early as possible. Just celebrate your profound wisdom Mr Day don't stay in the closet trying to hide what you're doing . . . or don't you think you can get away with it yet?

Those of us who remain in contact with reality are going through things like this. US Army in a year used 70 million rounds in Iraq. DHS has stockpiled 1.6 billion, with armoured cars. The Boston Martial law stunt should concern everyone.

Instead we're supposed to be worried about elite/gov. preoccupation/distractions like the gas we exhale?

Ordinary people are completely exasperated with this decadent nonsense.

Martin Cothran said...


I took it that since you were quoting Griggs to make your point that you were agreeing with his comment, but I should have noted that in saying it. I'll stand corrected. Fair enough.

The rest was just in fun (you know like the "Count Cothran" thing).

Richard Day said...

Thanks Martin.

Thomas said...


Generally when you quote someone multiple times making a point about someone else, it's irresponsible not to mention it to be wrong when you know it is incorrect.

If, for example, when discussing you, I repeated so- and so-'s accusation that you are a Klansman, you would be justified to think either that I thought this to be true or that I have a responsibility, if I repeat it, to state that it is false.

Thomas said...

Actually, that's not the best analogy, since there's an obvious moral problem present in my example.

Change the analogy to the quotation of someone who suggests that Richard Day has mistaken Romeo and Juliet for Fifty Shades of Gray and the analogy is more symmetrical.

Richard Day said...

Good point, Thomas.

But I didn't know who was correct regarding the documents. Grigg linked the document he was referring to. I'm not sure Martin ever did.

Dick Innes was running down that issue with KyTeacher and perhaps others.I think they ultimately agreed on the correct document and moved the discuss to some of the subtleties of SB1 and how standards actually impact classrooms.

I was repeating Grigg's "weather" example, which I agreed was on point.

Anonymous said...

Martin, if you aren't a creationist, then why do you work for the organization that promoted this: ?